Scottish Legal Complaints Commission Omdömen 

It's a sham. There is no mediation and we were very unconvinced that was any ' mediation' in the true sense of the word, from the very start. As others have said, its a device to head off claims against incompetent solicitors. I wish we had read these reviews before engaging genuinely with our legally smart opponents. They shafted us via SLCC. Smiling assasins!
Reject their mediation!!! Get your own brief. This is a shamefully biased set up.

The Law Society of Scotland provides clear standards for Solicitors &Firms.

In SLCC's review of my case, they did not take account of the standards laid down by the Law Society of Scotland.

The solicitors and firm did not engage Collaboras Medico-Legal to confirm that Clinical Negligence happened. LD "experts" deemed my case had no merit. They were wrong which was confirmed by a different solicitor who did do their job correctly.

Funding was available from my insurer - another solicitor obtained funding. LD did not ask because they deemed my case had no merit. They were wrong.

SLCC protects incompetent solicitors.

I would have scored SLCC a ZERO - but this is not available.
It does not surprise me that SLCC has such a low rating on this platform.

My experience with the SLCC has been profoundly disappointing and has significantly eroded my trust in legal regulation in Scotland.

As a complainant, I encountered a process that was the opposite of fair, transparent, or effective. The core issues were not with the outcome itself, but with how the investigation was conducted.

Key Failures:

1. Procedural Unfairness & Secrecy: The SLCC investigator relied on key evidence (file notes from the firm I complained about) but refused to share this evidence with me. I was expected to respond to allegations without being allowed to see the documents they were based on. This created a fundamental and unacceptable inequality. Their rigid interpretation of confidentiality (Section 43 of the 2007 Act) seemed to prioritise process over justice.
2. Lack of Critical Scrutiny: The investigator appeared to accept the solicitor's file notes as unquestionable fact, while my account was treated as secondary. Critical discrepancies, such as the firm’s failure to provide a complete file, were noted but not properly investigated or used to question the reliability of the evidence provided.
3. Pre-judgment & Pressure: During the process, the investigator actively advised me to accept a minimal settlement, citing a low valuation of my complaint before the investigation was complete. The official record of this call was sanitised and inaccurate. This, coupled with very short deadlines for me but long tolerances for the firm, created a clear impression of a pre-determined outcome.
4. Obstructive Data Handling: When I submitted a formal Subject Access Request to obtain my own information, the SLCC’s response was heavily redacted. They withheld material using broad exemptions without justifying how disclosure would harm their functions. They dismissed clear guidance from the Law Society of Scotland that file notes belong to the client.

Overall Impression:
The SLCC’s stated aims of "building trust and confidence" and ensuring "fair and transparent" investigations ring hollow. In practice, the process felt opaque, biased in favour of documented (solicitor) evidence, and designed to close complaints rather than scrutinise them thoroughly. The cost, time, and stress involved were considerable, only to be met with a process that felt inherently stacked against the complainant.

I cannot recommend relying on the SLCC for a meaningful review of a solicitor’s service. The experience has been more damaging than the original poor service, as it demonstrates a regulatory body unwilling to practice the fairness it is meant to uphold.

Advice to Others: Be prepared for a long, frustrating, and inherently unbalanced process. Document everything meticulously and consider that judicial review may be the only path to a truly impartial hearing.

I contacted the SLCC as a layman to report Eversheds Sutherland LLP, acting on behalf of Tesco Bank had repeatably knowingly provided false and misleading information to the court, in an immoral attempt to get the case dismissed or to delay and increase my personal costs. Throughout the court case I had to repeatably correct the obvious mistakes, irrelevant information and solicitor’s nonsensical and contradictory statements. Ultimately Tesco Bank failed in their attempt to get the case dismissed and wasted the courts time.

The SLCC's 10 week investigation concluded; “Solicitors are entitled to accept what their clients have told them at face value unless they know such information to be false.” “This does not indicate that a solicitor has taken improper instructions.”

This statement allows an incompetent Solicitor to simply claim they had no way of knowing that they were committing perjury, no matter how obvious or unarguable their clients statements are.

I find it hard to believe that the SLCC could ever find in favour of a layman. The SLCC needs to be investigated as this commission only serves to protect Scottish lawyers. The SLCC online claim of impartial investigations is clearly not worth the virtual paper it is written on.

I had to use SLCC twice, and at both occasions, it felt like they copy-pasted the law firm's argument/opinion instead of a fair assessment/investigation.
They start with a very positive, reassuring response, which is great because it takes a great amount of courage to stand against a firm that knows all the loopholes. Not everyone is courageous enough to take a legal action against the firm whose bread and butter is- the law.
And for those, SLCC is their only hope, and sadly it is not as impartial as it claims to be.
In both of my cases, the "investigation" returned, favouring the firm. The report looked like it was written by the firm themselves. For example, SLCC cites that the law firms are not responsible for the judgement ruling.
For example, if a lawyer submits a wrong document or fails to submit crucial documents that lead to a different judgement, SLCC will still take the firm's side.
SLCC needs to take a step back and ask itself a question-despite being free t why over 79% of complainers are unhappy?
Of course, people won't be happy if they don't get the desired outcome, but with over 80% of unsatisfied clients, you can't use this logic to justify this.
SLCC is the last straw of thousands of people, and I think it is about time for SLCC to investigate itself and find out why less than 12% of complainers are satisfied?

The SLCC is NOT independent and unbiased.
The SLCC is funded by a levy on Solicitors.
When Investigators are funded by the solicitors they are investigating, that is a Conflict of Interest, and needs to be changed.

In one word, subpar. Why? 1. It took months for my complaint to be dealt with. 2. The SLCC were not able to make international calls so I had to reach out at my expense. 3. My complaint about one Legal firm's misrepresentation was redirected to another Legal firm but I would have to resubmit the complaint and start again from scratch if I wanted to continue. 4. Overall, the clear perception the SLCC gave to me was one of clear bias and defending the interests of legal firms at all costs by wearing down the complainer's patience to the point where the only viable option is to give up.

Sadly unable to give no stars . Abysmal organization. They are clearly all for the solicitors . Numerous professionally constructed emails which clearly showed the incompetence of the law firm dealing with the contesting of our fathers will , all 7 complaints warranted further investigation, however none were upheld .The Scottish Parliament needs to investigate this organization sooner rather than later .

The SLCC were keen to wash their hands of my problem as quick as the legal firm I was complaining about. Totally useless. All the ombudsman and regulatory type organisations are. I have never had any success getting any of them to uphold any of my complaints despite me being a belt and braces type and having a portfolio of evidence to support my case.

My sisters and I submitted a complaint in October 2024 against a Senior Partner of a well known Glasgow Solicitors firm. In March 2025, the SLCC identified seven issues for further investigation. Mediation failed, and the case moved to an Investigator. When we finally received the Investigator’s report in September 2025, not a single issue was upheld. The report was disorganised, hard to follow, and one issue wasn’t even completed.

We then prepared extensive evidence for the Determination Committee, hours of work. Despite being told the decision could take until 24th December, we received the outcome on the 14th of November 2025. All seven issues were dismissed, fully supporting the Investigator. We were shocked at this as we had provided clear, detailed evidence for each point.

The only positive part of the process was that timescales were met. Beyond that, our experience was extremely disappointing. In our view, the process feels biased towards solicitors, ignoring physical evidence that we provided proving the Solicitor was not giving the Investigator the correct information. We did not feel our complaint was assessed in a fair or balanced way.

We will be raising our concerns with the Scottish Parliament, as we do not believe the SLCC is fulfilling the purpose for which it was created.

⭐ 1 star — and only because zero stars isn’t an option.

I approached the SLCC due to the solicitor responsible for conveyancing for my late parents being negligent (3 elements - 2 fully upheld and 1 partially upheld by the SLCC).

The final judgements by the case officer and the SLCC Determination Committee, even though the case transparently showed negligence, warranted a miserly recompense, which was doubled by the solicitor in question???? Clearly showing that at least they understood that they were very much at fault and had performed well below the standards required.

The SLCC timescale for the complaint investigation was way over what it should have been (we had two case workers in the end) and we had to travel over painful issues and information more than once. And even then there were delays in responses and moving the process along.

Not a good experience dealing with the SLCC organisation and one that I hope that I will never ever have to repeat again.

I actually feel the same as the people in previous posts. It has been a total waste of time and I feel they’ve taken the word of the solicitors and not mine. I kind of expected it as I’d seen previous posts about them.

The evidence was there for them to see but they took the law firms take on it. I really can’t believe it.

I can’t afford to go to the court of session.

The outcome achieved was via a mediation which was recommended and we agreed. The outcome was reasonable, however the process was ludicrously long and drawn out, and the work involved in presenting the case and then going through the procedure was extensive.

A complete waste of time, I wonder how many people they have helped

SLCC handled my complaint with understanding and empathy and achieved a fantastic outcome for what was a very stressful situation. Although it took time however I can understand the reason for this due to the complexity of the situation.

Absolutely appalling slow service and seem to completely ignore the strong facts I submitted and made a decision based on the lawyer must be right and would not lie
When I tried to ask about parts of the decision they refused and said I can appeal in the court of session.How can anyone afford to do that as there is more expensive legal costs involved so I imagine very few people in my situation could afford to contest a decision
I found the organisation arrogant, unhelpful and basically not fit for purpose.Love to know how many decisions yearly they uphold against solicitors.I bet you could count them on a couple of figures.The whole legal system is set up vastly in favour of those who work within it and the common man will always struggle get anywhere as everywhere you turn you are fighting the legal system and the cost of doing so is way outside a normal persons budget.You will not get legal aid to fight the SLCC just like I could not contest my dads will as the cost was horrendous and legal aid not applicable
My opinion is the whole system is corrupt and they all watch each others backs
Sad but in my opinion true and I would not trust any of them to walk my dog round the block

Wtf is that. When you have cleft syndrome, down syndrome and Scottish syndrome in your genetics you get tservice of that kind.

China developed in poverty structures that would blow your mind. Scottish developed anxiety in that time.

That's all it is. This service and the kind of it.

The handling of my husband’s death and the settling of his SIMPLE will was a disaster from start to finish.
This resulted in my being thrown into deep depression which lasted over 4 years until with the help of a friend I have now beaten.
By this time when I was able to rationalise the what I had suffered it was out of time for the useless firm of solicitors to give me anything, but a brush off!
SLCC did the same this experience confirmef the popular belief that the legal profession sticks together protecting their own and (expletive deleted) the public you have allegedly sworn to represent.

My experience with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has left me with deep concerns about its transparency, independence, and ability to serve the public interest.

From start to finish, the process felt opaque. The so-called "Determination Committee" provided no information about when it met, who sat on it, or what methodology it used to reach its decisions. There is no evidence that all of the materials I submitted — including my appeal letter — were even considered. Instead, the decision appeared to align entirely with the law firm’s narrative, with no meaningful engagement with my evidence.

I was shocked to learn that the same individual who prepared the investigation report also wrote to me with the final outcome on behalf of the Determination Committee. This blurs the line between investigation and decision-making, raising real concerns about impartiality.

The SLCC cites that 90% of investigation reports are upheld by the Determination Committee — a statistic which, in my view, acts as a deterrent to complainants who might otherwise challenge flawed findings.

While part of my complaint was upheld, the token compensation offered was insulting and failed to reflect the real distress caused. The entire process left me feeling that the voice of the complainant is secondary to protecting the reputation of legal firms.

The SLCC was created to provide independent oversight of Scotland’s legal profession. In my case, it failed to deliver that independence, and instead demonstrated a system where transparency is absent, bias appears inherent, and procedural fairness is questionable.

Worse still I learnt at the end of the process is that the SLCC has no public body accountability to anyone or even any ministerial oversight. So literally they can do what they want without scrutiny. Lawyers for lawyers... don't hold up any hope.
Shame on you all!